When Speaker of Parliament, Ms Anita Among ended plenary proceedings prematurely on Wednesday, her reasons were prescient and should help reopen the debate about ministers sitting in Parliament as full members.
So many past Speakers have screamed themselves hoarse about perennial absenteeism on the front benches. It is time for a final solution to this untenable situation. There is a genuine reason why debate on this issue predates the current Parliament, and was the subject of passionate interrogation as the Constituent Assembly wrote our 1995 Constitution. Its name is conflict of interest.
Part of the problem is inherent in our hybrid parliamentary structure which allows the people’s representatives to concurrently serve as ministers. One minister unwittingly illuminated the dilemma they face in saying Cabinet colleagues are too busy running government and, therefore, hardly find the time for Parliament matters.
Four years after the promulgation of the new Constitution, a progressive constitutional amendment Bill was introduced by two thoughtful members of the 6th Parliament: the member for Amuria then, Francis Onapito Ekomoloit, and the equally cerebral Maj Gen Gregory Mugisha Muntu (Army MP). That Bill would have seen elected MPs relinquish their seats upon appointment as ministers.
Unfortunately, the 6th Parliament missed what was a gilt-edged opportunity to advance our practice of government. On October 18, 2000, they voted to throw out the Bill which sought to amend Article 113 under which the President appoints Cabinet from among members of Parliament. Many MPs were swayed by the misplaced fear that, if passed, the alteration would undermine their chances of becoming ministers.
But the same provision in sub-Article 4 says a minister will not hold any office of profit or emolument likely to compromise his or her office. From the absenteeism that is rife on the 11th Parliament’s front benches, it is clear that the holding of ministerial dockets is compromising parliamentary work. The reverse is true since ministers, who are also elected MPs, find themselves inexorably torn between serving the parochial interests of their constituents, and the broader national interest.
The Onapito-Muntu Bill had sensibly attempted to cure this obnoxious and obvious conflict of interest. It would have also enhanced observance of the doctrine of separation of powers between the three arms of government by stopping ministers from wearing two hats.
It is not too late to revisit the question. We need to relieve ministers of constituency burdens. The reasons for maintaining the status quo which were advanced in 2000 by former prime minister, Prof Apolo Nsibambi, were as lame then as they are today because it is not true that ministers can only capture the national tone and mood, and be more accountable to Ugandans, when they sit in Parliament permanently.
